Main Menu

Taitz under attack, surrounded–threats loom

While I’m at the dentist’s office, you can read this tale of Orly Taitz inserting herself where she is not wanted, but herself found wanting a legal theory to support her action.

Thanks to the Jack Ryan collection for this tidbit that contains some perhaps over-the-top language, which I borrowed for the headline.

Taitz’ motion is subject to attack on many fronts; between Plaintiffs and the Defendants, she is surrounded.

In sum, Taitz has not articulated any specific common question of law or fact, much less one compelling enough to overcome the looming threats of delay and undue prejudice.

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge

Judicial Watch v King (SD Ind) – Order Denying Taitz Motion to Intevene by Jack Ryan

, , , ,

83 Responses to Taitz under attack, surrounded–threats loom

  1. avatar
    alg March 26, 2013 at 9:08 am #

    another Orlyfail

  2. avatar
    donna March 26, 2013 at 9:59 am #

    “In sum, Taitz has not articulated any specific common question of law or fact, much less one compelling enough to overcome the looming threats of delay and undue prejudice. Accordingly, Taitz’s motion is DENIED”

    correctamundo

  3. avatar
    Rickey March 26, 2013 at 10:43 am #

    The prospect of Orly intervening in a lawsuit must give attorneys the willies.

  4. avatar
    gorefan March 26, 2013 at 11:11 am #

    Does anyone know offhand why she wanted to intervene? I’m to lazy to look up the background of this case to try and figure out her reasons for butting in.

  5. avatar
    Birther Weary March 26, 2013 at 11:20 am #

    Sanctions would be nice. How about we start at $100,000 every time she wastes the courts time with her incompetent piles of crap?

  6. avatar
    Daniel March 26, 2013 at 12:18 pm #

    gorefan:
    Does anyone know offhand why she wanted to intervene?I’m to lazy to look up the background of this case to try and figure out her reasons for butting in.

    It’s all about her….

  7. avatar
    BatGuano March 26, 2013 at 12:48 pm #

    Birther Weary:
    Sanctions would be nice. How about we start at $100,000 every time she wastes the courts time with her incompetent piles of crap?

    i’d be content with $10 every time she says “usurper/usurped”, “treason/traitor” and “let me feeeneeesh”. maybe turn it into a drinking game ( do they allow that in a court? ).

  8. avatar
    Bob March 26, 2013 at 1:12 pm #

    Orly,

    I’ll write your blog entry for you regarding this:

    I WON! I WON! I WON!

    Feel free to cut-n-paste.

  9. avatar
    Northland10 March 26, 2013 at 1:17 pm #

    gorefan:
    Does anyone know offhand why she wanted to intervene?I’m to lazy to look up the background of this case to try and figure out her reasons for butting in.

    OrlyLaw Mission Statement:

    LOOK AT MEEE!!!!!!!!!

    I think there was mention of elections in the case, maybe.

  10. avatar
    Northland10 March 26, 2013 at 1:25 pm #

    gorefan:
    Does anyone know offhand why she wanted to intervene?I’m to lazy to look up the background of this case to try and figure out her reasons for butting in.

    Your not the only one too lazy to look up the background of the case. You think Orly would spend the time to research the case, or even read the original complaint?

  11. avatar
    Butterfly Bilderberg March 26, 2013 at 1:32 pm #

    Cited the wrong subsection of the rule governing intervention and failed to comply with pleading requirements. What a friggin’ surprise.

  12. avatar
    Thinker March 26, 2013 at 3:07 pm #

    It’s possible she read the original complaint. She cut and pasted several pages of it into the amended complaint of her own Indiana case, a fact noted by the attorneys representing the State of Indiana in their opposition to her motion to intervene. http://ia700803.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.insd.40527/gov.uscourts.insd.40527.42.0.pdf

    Northland10: Your not the only one too lazy to look up the background of the case.You think Orly would spend the time to research the case, or even read the original complaint?

  13. avatar
    G March 26, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

    Wow…that would be a quick way to alcohol poisoning for sure…

    BatGuano: i’d be content with $10 every time she says “usurper/usurped”, “treason/traitor” and “let me feeeneeesh”. maybe turn it into a drinking game ( do they allow that in a court? ).

  14. avatar
    Deborah March 26, 2013 at 4:09 pm #

    This was a very far fetched move by Orly. The case pertains to non-compliance by the State of Indiana to maintain accurate voter registration rolls in some counties that include duplicates, deceased voters, and voters who have moved out of the county, after a satisfactory 2006 clean-up.

    It is complicated by the fact that in 2011, chief election official and the Indiana Sec. of State, Charles White, was indicted on seven felony counts, including false voter registration. He was removed from office and sentenced to one year’s house arrest.

    Defendants King and Trent are co-directors of the Indiana Election Division (Connie Lawson is the new Indiana Sec. of State). King and Trent dismissed a complaint made by Judicial Watch in which Judicial Watch alleged the failure to maintain accurate voting rolls was a violation of Federal Law. King and Trent essentially responded that “even if all the allegations made in the complaint were true” they did not violate the National Voter Registration Act, without any other explanation.

    …and that is as much as I read of the complaint at this point. Once again, it appears that this group is attempting to bring criminal indictments outside of their capacity to bring a criminal complaint.

  15. avatar
    Deborah March 26, 2013 at 4:28 pm #

    Here is one of the filings of the Defendant’s explaining their side of the story.

    http://ia600803.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.insd.40527/gov.uscourts.insd.40527.21.0.pdf

  16. avatar
    Supremes NBC March 26, 2013 at 10:54 pm #

    A great comment from a Supreme Court Justice during a Senate hearing.

    Article 2 section 1 is probably there to prevent English nobleman from beconing a US president.

    Hmmm! Scotus is waiting for an eligibility case ? http://youtu.be/Y8k6-ThWyfU

    Maybe there are many ‘ignorant’ Obots who are going to be licking their derrieres when and if Scotus hears an eligibility case.

  17. avatar
    Total Disgrace March 26, 2013 at 11:06 pm #

    Maybe the bumhead, lying, cheating, phony in the White House will go down in history as the African Judas who sold his soul for the Marxist agenda.

  18. avatar
    Lupin March 27, 2013 at 4:31 am #

    I continued to be gobsmacked that this lunatic is even permitted to clutter the Courts with her nonsense, especially outside California.

  19. avatar
    The Magic M March 27, 2013 at 4:58 am #

    BatGuano: maybe turn it into a drinking game ( do they allow that in a court? )

    You can play bullsh*t bingo. Though when you yell “BINGO!” you’ll probably be thrown out. 😉

  20. avatar
    Norbrook March 27, 2013 at 7:28 am #

    BatGuano: i’d be content with $10 every time she says “usurper/usurped”, “treason/traitor” and “let me feeeneeesh”. maybe turn it into a drinking game ( do they allow that in a court? ).

    While it would be entertaining, I don’t think they’d allow it. A courtroom filled with passed out drunks is considered a bad thing. 😉 Besides, who knows, after about 30 minutes of that, Orly might start making sense to the audience. That’s also a bad thing.

  21. avatar
    OReaLY Factor March 27, 2013 at 8:39 am #

    Bat G.

    I know of a certain judge and bailiff that used to bet on “key words” at the start of the day. Who ever had their word uttered the most times by the lawyers in court that day won and the loser had to buy the drinks. Of course certain common legal terms were off limits and you weren’t allowed to reuse a word within 60 days. If only Orly’s circus had come to town while he was still on the bench ….

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2013 at 8:46 am #

    Some of the Framers of the Constitution felt that way. They were concerned that a foreigner, the agent of some foreign interest, would come to the United States, naturalize, and then bribe his way into the presidency. This sentiment is behind both the Article II requirements for the office of the President, as well as the Electoral College.

    So what’s your point?

    Supremes NBC: Article 2 section 1 is probably there to prevent English nobleman from beconing (sic) a US president.

  23. avatar
    Scientist March 27, 2013 at 8:51 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Some of the Framers of the Constitution felt that way. They were concerned that a foreigner, the agent of some foreign interest, would come to the United States, naturalize, and then bribe his way into the presidency. This sentiment is behind both the Article II requirements for the office of the President, as well as the Electoral College.

    Given that that is likely the actual original intent, perhaps the courts should consider whether it even ought to apply to an ordinary immigrant representing no one but him or her self.

  24. avatar
    Keith March 27, 2013 at 8:54 am #

    OReaLY Factor:
    Bat G.

    I know of a certain judge and bailiff that used to bet on “key words” at the start of the day.Who ever had their word uttered the most times by the lawyers in court that day won and the loser had to buy the drinks.Of course certain common legal terms were off limits and you weren’t allowed to reuse a word within 60 days.If only Orly’s circus had come to town while he was still on the bench ….

    Judges in Victoria Australia, basically Melbourne, used to amuse themselves trying to outdo each other in court with witty, pithy statements that would earn them a mention on the all things legal radio show called “Lawyers, Guns, and Money” on 3RRR radio. Each week they would give a ‘prize’ (i.e. on air mention) of the ‘Beak of the Weak’, and at the end of year wrap up they would reminisce about them all and vote on the ‘Beak of the Year’.

    Some of them were hilarious.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2013 at 9:11 am #

    Based on my reading of the debates on Presidential eligibility and other commentary, my opinion is that the concerns that prompted the NBC clause are no longer relevant as our form or government is no longer novel, and that the US is now a powerful and wealthy nation. That said, I see no groundswell of sentiment that would reach the high bar necessary for a Constitutional amendment, so we’re left with what we have.

    Scientist: Given that that is likely the actual original intent, perhaps the courts should consider whether it even ought to apply to an ordinary immigrant representing no one but him or her self.

  26. avatar
    GoofBalls March 27, 2013 at 9:32 am #

    [Your comment does not relate to the current article. If you want to participate on this blog, respect the subjects under discussion, or post on the Open Thread. If you want to enter into a dialog, you cannot do it with multiple personalities; pick a name and stick to it, and stop trying to appear to be multiple persons. Otherwise, I will just delete your comments. Drive-by insults are of no value and are akin to littering. Doc.]

    The point is that a supreme court justice contradicts all the garbage posted on this blog when the post say that the NBC has many different false representations on this blog.

    The comment from the Supreme court justice appears to validate the birthers views of what an NBC should be. The comment made by the justice contradicts what Dr. C(rap) is posting on this blog and in fact it appears that Dr. C(rap) agrees with the Supreme court justice comment that indicates that Americans didn’t want some kind of King’s subject to ever become president of America.
    AND! how can anyone believe that there’s a valid age of 35 years old to be potus when the white house donkey has three forged documents?

    avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2013 at 8:46 am (Quote) #

    Some of the Framers of the Constitution felt that way. They were concerned that a foreigner, the agent of some foreign interest, would come to the United States, naturalize, and then bribe his way into the presidency. This sentiment is behind both the Article II requirements for the office of the President, as well as the Electoral College.

  27. avatar
    Scientist March 27, 2013 at 10:37 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Based on my reading of the debates on Presidential eligibility and other commentary, my opinion is that the concerns that prompted the NBC clause are no longer relevant as our form or government is no longer novel, and that the US is now a powerful and wealthy nation.

    Agreed 100%.

    Dr. Conspiracy: That said, I see no groundswell of sentiment that would reach the high bar necessary for a Constitutional amendment, so we’re left with what we have.

    But, we are discussing how the meaning of a term is interpreted, which doesn’t involve amending. Could the Supreme Court simply find, based on those debates and commentary, that the term should only be applied to foreign royalty or agents of foreign governments and not to ordinary immigrants? In principle, they could, though I will agree it is unlikely they would.

    For example, in Plessy, the Supreme Court found separate but equal to be constitutional. Then, in Brown, they found it wasn’t. In the interim, there were no amendments that pertained to segregation. But society changed. We are seeing something similar in the same-sex marriage cases the Court is hearing yesterday and today.

    This is why I find “originalism” to be profoundly silly. The Constitution exists to serve the needs of the country, not the reverse. As the needs change, the Constitution changes, whether amended or not. It might well be better to have an open process in which the entire Constitution was periodically revised as a whole to adapt to social changes. This is what Jefferson argued for (he said, “One generation cannot bind another”) and is what most countries do (I think the average life of a Constitution is around 50 years) . Failing that, the US has left it to 9 people in black robes. That has generally worked, but isn’t necessarily optimal.

  28. avatar
    The Magic M March 27, 2013 at 11:39 am #

    Scientist: This is why I find “originalism” to be profoundly silly. The Constitution exists to serve the needs of the country, not the reverse.

    Well said. It’s one thing to write a Constitution so a free and prospering country has a solid legal foundation. It’s another thing to write a Constitution to forever bind future generations to your personal opinions.

    And while a common counterargument is “if you don’t like original intent, you have to amend”, this neglects the fact that laws are usually written to be timeless, not to be changed whenever society’s opinion diverges from lawmakers’ *intent* (but only if it diverges from the actual text of the law).

  29. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 27, 2013 at 11:40 am #

    Scientist: This is why I find “originalism” to be profoundly silly. The Constitution exists to serve the needs of the country, not the reverse. As the needs change, the Constitution changes, whether amended or not. It might well be better to have an open process in which the entire Constitution was periodically revised as a whole to adapt to social changes. This is what Jefferson argued for (he said, “One generation cannot bind another”) and is what most countries do (I think the average life of a Constitution is around 50 years) . Failing that, the US has left it to 9 people in black robes. That has generally worked, but isn’t necessarily optimal.

    The only “original intent” that we can be sure of all the Founding Fathers shared (except perhaps D, Carrol and Fitzsimmons), was that only White Anglo-Saxon Male Protestants (WAMPs) should ever be in charge – and of course, within less than half of a century, when Andrew Jackson was still alive, Americans forgot about it.

    Nevertheless, the three Presidents who did not have the four characteristics, had three of them. I consider both Irish-Americans and half-Irish, half-colonial-British Presidents to be 100% Anglo-Saxons.

    It took the new nation barely 48 years to elect a WMP, no fewer than 124 years to elect a WAM and again 48 years to elect an AMP. Evidence of how important religion became after Van Buren?

    Will it take another 48 years to elect a WAP? How long before the USA elects one with only 2,1, or none of those characteristics?

  30. avatar
    Northland10 March 27, 2013 at 2:21 pm #

    The Magic M: Well said. It’s one thing to write a Constitution so a free and prospering country has a solid legal foundation. It’s another thing to write a Constitution to forever bind future generations to your personal opinions.

    And while a common counterargument is “if you don’t like original intent, you have to amend”, this neglects the fact that laws are usually written to be timeless, not to be changed whenever society’s opinion diverges from lawmakers’ *intent* (but only if it diverges from the actual text of the law).

    The same approach to disregarding the meaning of NBC could be used for other parts, such as Habeas Corpus. What might benefit one outdated issue could be used to trample other rights without the “slow down and think about it process” inherent in making an amendment.

  31. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 27, 2013 at 2:29 pm #

    Is there any way to sue the California BAR for allowing this bleach blond blight to continue unabated?

  32. avatar
    Jim March 27, 2013 at 2:43 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Is there any way to sue the California BAR for allowing this bleach blond blight to continue unabated?

    Sure, hire Orly…she’ll make up whatever reason she wants to sue them for you. You won’t even have to show up or file anything!!! hehehe

  33. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 27, 2013 at 2:56 pm #

    Jim: Sure, hire Orly…she’ll make up whatever reason she wants to sue them for you.You won’t even have to show up or file anything!!!hehehe

    That is actually crazy enough to work. They’ll see her insanity up close and personal, and ask themselves “Dear God, what have we unleashed?” 😉

  34. avatar
    Scientist March 27, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

    Northland10: The same approach to disregarding the meaning of NBC could be used for other parts, such as Habeas Corpus. What might benefit one outdated issue could be used to trample other rights without the “slow down and think about it process” inherent in making an amendment.

    First of all, the original intent of the NBC clause was to prevent the installation of foreign royalty. I think the debates and the history of the time make that very clear. So, refusing to apply it to ordinary immigrants would actually be truer to the original intent than the current policy is.

    Second, I dispute that the Constitution is really the only thing that stands between the people and tyranny. Habeas Corpus comes not from the Constitution, but from Common Law. The important rights in the Bill of Rights really come from that tradition as well and are codified in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, along with many other rights that Americans have ignored, but that other countries show more respect for (like rights to basic health care-without that when you are sick, the other rights are meaningless-and education). I maintain that if the Constitution went away tomorrow, the great traditions of Common Law would protect all your rights just as they are protected in English-speaking countries that don’t have constitutions or wrote them only recently.

    Third, you may be interested that Chief Justice Roberts said just today that the answer to the unconstitutional parts of DOMA is not for the court to void them, but for the President to simply not enforce them http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/john-roberts-swipes-obama-doma.php. So, if Congress ignored NBC and accepted a brilliant, loyal and highly accomplished immigrant that the people had voted for as President, that would hardly be a tragedy, would it?

  35. avatar
    Scientist March 27, 2013 at 3:47 pm #

    Just to expand on this, because it’s a bugaboo of mine-freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to a fair trial, etc,-it’s a misnomer to call them constitutional rights. They are HUMAN RIGHTS. Every nation in the world is bound to respect them regardless of what their constitutions say. That is certainly long-standing US policy. I bothers me when someone says this or that right (like voting) isn’t in the Constitution, so it doesn’t exist. That’s b.s.-they are human rights and they most definitely exist.

    Finally, the Constitution is said to protect against the wrong-headed desires of the majority that would trample freedom. I wonder. The Constitution protected slavery. So did the Supreme Court. Yet, by 1830 or 1840, the large majority of the population lived in states that had abolished slavery and a simple majority will at that point would have almost certainly been to phase it out over some period, perhaps 20 years. That might have avoided the Civil War. Remember, the British Empire abolished slavery by a vote of Parliament in 1833. Done.

  36. avatar
    aarrgghh March 27, 2013 at 3:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Based on my reading of the debates on Presidential eligibility and other commentary, my opinion is that the concerns that prompted the NBC clause are no longer relevant …

    new thread yonder over at freeper gulch: “Anti-Birther Dr. Conspiracy Says The Presidential Natural Born Citizen Clause Is No Longer Relevant”

    some representative coments:

    cold case posse supporter: “What you just read is the mindset of a Obama supporter. I do not agree with his opinion, nor with his other supporters who agree with him 100%, that Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is no longer relevant. In my opinion, it has become more relevant than ever since we have had a non-natural born Citizen become president five years and counting. The quest to keep Article 2 Section 1 from becoming irrelevant is paramount to the national security of this nation.”

    Roccus: “Considering the present situation, I’d say that’s about right. Not saying I like it, but reality agrees with that statement.”

    Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America: “No rule of law is relevant under this regime. I lost count of 0bama’s impeachable offenses after 120 or something of that number. FReeper ‘Nachum’ has an excellent website which itemizes all the madness and FReeper ‘Butterdezillion’ can tell you everything you need to know about the forged birth certificate. His own research has yielded the smoking gun on the bc.”

    SMARTY: “If I am ever in court for anything, I’ll just tell the judge that the law he wants to charge me with breaking is no longer ‘relevant’. Will that work?”

    servo1969: “Well f, let’s just allow anyone to run for president. I wonder Raúl Castro would be interested?”

  37. avatar
    bovril March 27, 2013 at 4:14 pm #

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddd she’s off again….

    Not content with making a complete arse of herself at C-PAC she has now reported that she sashayed down to a SSA office in CT and unloaded her 75 kilo’s of BS zibbits on the poor staff there.

    As usual she lied, demanded, threatened etc and qu’elle suprise got shown the door…..I smell another RICO case….

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/ssa-crashed-obama-used-another-social.html

  38. avatar
    Scientist March 27, 2013 at 4:52 pm #

    aarrgghh: SMARTY: “If I am ever in court for anything, I’ll just tell the judge that the law he wants to charge me with breaking is no longer ‘relevant’. Will that work?”

    There are outdated laws in many jurisdictions (there are numerous web sites that list them). If a prosecutor was dumb enough to charge someone under those laws, that would be a defense. I remember when our former Governor, Eliot Spitzer, got into his little trouble, there was talk that he could be charged under the Mann Act, which is still on the books. The fact that no one had been charged under it in decades was a good argument not to try.

  39. avatar
    G March 27, 2013 at 4:54 pm #

    *face palm*

    aarrgghh: new thread yonder over at freeper gulch: “Anti-Birther Dr. Conspiracy Says The Presidential Natural Born Citizen Clause Is No Longer Relevant”

  40. avatar
    MattR March 27, 2013 at 5:01 pm #

    bovril:
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddd she’s off again….

    Not content with making a complete arse of herself at C-PAC she has now reported that she sashayed down to a SSA office in CT and unloaded her 75 kilo’s of BS zibbits on the poor staff there.

    As usual she lied, demanded, threatened etc and qu’elle suprise got shown the door…..I smell another RICO case….

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/ssa-crashed-obama-used-another-social.html

    From the link you provided:

    Ms. Sheridan advised Taitz that she will be contacted by an employee in Washington DC, who will be handling this.

    Translation: “I’m gonna let some other poor schlub deal with your nuttiness” Well played, Ms Sheridan. Well played.

  41. avatar
    G March 27, 2013 at 5:06 pm #

    That is the part that must really suck about having a public sector job over many private ones. They have to spend a little bit of time tolerating and humoring crazy people who show up raving about perceived ills and handing out reams of paper full of their delusions.

    Just one more reason why a lot of private businesses screen visitor appointments and have onsite security which can quickly escort the people back out the door and threaten them with calling the cops to arrest them for harassment on private propertly if they don’t immediately leave…

    bovril:
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddd she’s off again….

    Not content with making a complete arse of herself at C-PAC she has now reported that she sashayed down to a SSA office in CT and unloaded her 75 kilo’s of BS zibbits on the poor staff there.

    As usual she lied, demanded, threatened etc and qu’elle suprise got shown the door…..I smell another RICO case….

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/ssa-crashed-obama-used-another-social.html

  42. avatar
    MattR March 27, 2013 at 5:08 pm #

    Scientist: There are outdated laws in many jurisdictions (there are numerous web sites that list them).If a prosecutor was dumb enough to charge someone under those laws, that would be a defense.I remember when our former Governor, Eliot Spitzer, got into his little trouble, there was talk that he could be charged under the Mann Act, which is still on the books.The fact that no one had been charged under it in decades was a good argument not to try.

    Sounds like “SMARTY” has not heard of jury nullification.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2013 at 5:34 pm #

    I didn’t say the clause was no longer relevant. It is very relevant because it is the law and it determines who may run for President.

    I said that the concerns that prompted the inclusion of the clause in the Constitution are no longer relevant.

    Of course I’m long-banned at Freeperville.

    aarrgghh: new thread yonder over at freeper gulch: “Anti-Birther Dr. Conspiracy Says The Presidential Natural Born Citizen Clause Is No Longer Relevant”

  44. avatar
    Keith March 27, 2013 at 5:49 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: How long before the USA elects one with only 2,1, or none of those characteristics?

    Are there any Vietnamese Buddhists on EMILY’s List?

  45. avatar
    Keith March 27, 2013 at 5:54 pm #

    Scientist: Third, you may be interested that Chief Justice Roberts said just today that the answer to the unconstitutional parts of DOMA is not for the court to void them, but for the President to simply not enforce them

    I missed that, thanks for pointing it out.

    What an irresponsible thing for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to say. The Court is the arbitrator of what is Constitutional and what is not, not the President. This President may think DOMA is unconstitutional, the next may not, the next one may.

    What the heck do we pay the Supreme Court for anyway?

  46. avatar
    Keith March 27, 2013 at 6:13 pm #

    Scientist: I bothers me when someone says this or that right (like voting) isn’t in the Constitution, so it doesn’t exist. That’s b.s.-they are human rights and they most definitely exist.

    You are right to point out the difference between Constitutional rights and human rights. But your example, voting, is a civil right, not a human right.

    Human rights include the ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ kind of stuff. Stuff that all humans are entitled to simply because they exist.

    Civil rights are the stuff that members of a civilization are entitled too because they are members of that civilization. Voting is a right only because we belong to a society that organizes itself by voting. Voting was not a right in Mongol Asia.

    There is of course debate about which ‘rights’ belong in the ‘human rights’ category. I doubt Genghis Khan had the same idea of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ that I have, but even he would recognize that even his conquered subjects have the right to eat.

  47. avatar
    Scientist March 27, 2013 at 6:34 pm #

    Keith: But your example, voting, is a civil right, not a human right.

    It is recognized in Article 21 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Eleanor Roosevelt was instrumental in drafting and which the US has ratified, making it the law of the land. It states, ” Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.” http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml I will point out that the UDHR provides a far more expansive set of rights than the US Constitution.

    To me that means that if your country governs itself through elections, then you have a right to vote. If they choose to govern themselves, as some tribal societies do, through reaching consensus at tribal meetings, then you have a right to attend and speak. Universal suffrage is a value that America has claimed to be at stake in sending troops to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. That the President must be a natural born citizen is an example that is not a human right, nor a fundamental value that any sane person would die for. It’s merely a rule, like the infield fly rule.

    And surely, Keith, you aren’t suggesting that Genghis Khan should be the model for modern America.

  48. avatar
    Bob March 27, 2013 at 6:52 pm #

    Do we have an Obot stationed at the Stamford, CT Social Security office who can destroy Orly’s evidence or should one be dispatched?

  49. avatar
    Daniel March 27, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

    Bob:
    Do we have an Obot stationed at Stamford, CT Social Security office to destroy Orly’s evidence or should one be dispatched?

    We left a full staff there after they issued the original stolen SSN

  50. avatar
    Daniel March 27, 2013 at 7:01 pm #

    Gabe:
    Putting the brainpower/brainsof the thought and opinions by the posters on this blog on what is, is not a natural born citizen, on the edge of a straight edge razor, would seem like it is on a bowling alley.

    And yet Obama is still your President. That must really shred your shorts lol

  51. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 27, 2013 at 7:02 pm #

    Keith:
    What an irresponsible thing for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to say.

    —-
    I agree. If he has something to say, he should say it in a published Court opinion or dissent. Throwing out a provocative, confusing, and non-binding statement like that is just bizarre; same for Scalia.

  52. avatar
    Reality Check March 27, 2013 at 7:03 pm #

    I have read that the RC Radio studios are located in an underground bunker in Connecticut.

  53. avatar
    Gabe March 27, 2013 at 7:08 pm #

    Putting the depth of the thought and opinions of the posters on this blog whom believe there is no difference between natural born citizen, native citizen or just citizen and why it does not matter what the citizenry of the person who aspires to be President, on the edge of a straight edge razor would seem as it is on a bowling alley lane.

  54. avatar
    Keith March 27, 2013 at 7:13 pm #

    Scientist: And surely, Keith, you aren’t suggesting that Genghis Khan should be the model for modern America.

    No, of course not. I’m merely pointing out that VOTING is not a ‘human right’.

    The right to live is a human right, it is not dependent on the society in which a human functions.

    The right to vote is a civil right, it is dependent on the society in which a human functions.

    As you point out, some societies don’t vote, they reach consensus in other ways. My example was an extreme example of another way – Genghis Khan told everyone what the consensus was. Certainly participating in society is a human right, but how that society functions defines the set of civil rights.

    As you pointed out, the Constitution is not the sum total of one’s human rights. In fact the Constitution enumerates many more civil rights than human rights; that is the kind of document it is. Of course there is the Ninth Amendment, which acknowledges that the Constitution doesn’t pretend to have listed every possible ‘right’.

    Anyway, the Declaration of Independence is more of a human rights declaration than the Constitution.

  55. avatar
    Keith March 27, 2013 at 7:16 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I have read that the RC Radio studios are located in an underground bunker in Connecticut.

    Yeah, but since you never leave your Mom’s basement, how are you going to get to the SSA offices to deal with the breach?

  56. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater March 27, 2013 at 7:31 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I have read that the RC Radio studios are located in an underground bunker in Connecticut.

    Interesting I always thought I broadcast in a castle in the clouds

  57. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater March 27, 2013 at 7:32 pm #

    Keith: Yeah, but since you never leave your Mom’s basement, how are you going to get to the SSA offices to deal with the breach?

    I heard she actually went to the Stamford, CT SSA office to try to do something. I wish I would have known would have definitely stopped in to watch. They’re just down the street.

  58. avatar
    Birther Weary March 27, 2013 at 7:52 pm #

    Gabe:
    Putting the depth of the thought and opinions of the posters on this blog whom believe there is no difference between natural born citizen, native citizen or just citizen and why it does not matter what the citizenry of the person who aspires to be President, on the edge of a straight edge razor would seem as it is on a bowling alley lane.

    Could you rephrase that in English?

  59. avatar
    Majority Will March 27, 2013 at 8:05 pm #

    Birther Weary: Could you rephrase that in English?

    That’s as coherent as it gets when a jackass babbles in birtherese.

  60. avatar
    donna March 27, 2013 at 8:07 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: I wish I would have known would have definitely stopped in to watch. They’re just down the street.

    MOI AUSSI!!!! i’m 20 mnutes away – for someone like taitz who loves media attention, i see nothing in the local CT newspapers

    i would have loved to chronicle it for hysterical …. i mean historical reasons

  61. avatar
    Northland10 March 27, 2013 at 9:29 pm #

    Birther Weary: Could you rephrase that in English?

    Obama bad.. Me hate…

  62. avatar
    Reality Check March 27, 2013 at 9:35 pm #

    I wonder if that is Gabe Zolna from YoutTube? He speaks in Birfer gibberish.

    Birther Weary: Could you rephrase that in English?

  63. avatar
    Deborah March 27, 2013 at 9:45 pm #

    This is a long thread and I can’t read all of it. But I’ll throw my two cents in about the Defense of Marriage Act- (DOMA, which former Pres. Clinton recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn)…

    Scientist: Third, you may be interested that Chief Justice Roberts said just today that the answer to the unconstitutional parts of DOMA is not for the court to void them, but for the President to simply not enforce them

    The defense of marriage referred to here literally mandates that the office of the President of the U.S., the Commander-in-Chief, the military, and lessor law enforcement, i.e. (police), use public funds (paid by even celibate people) to actively engage in “defending” marriage with the use of armed force! How totally inappropriate that the government should put a gun to your head and force you to stay married, or make unlawful in degrees any number of variations outside of marriage (such as cohabitation). Marriage should not include government FORCE at all!!!!

    There was a time when only marriages between white folk was allowed, and interracial marriage was an enFORCED felony.

  64. avatar
    Deborah March 27, 2013 at 9:57 pm #

    Also, at the risk of upsetting “dissidents” and opponents of the idea that a natural born citizen according to Constitutional law is one born in the U.S., anyone is free to believe otherwise- but convincing the majority of voters is what will matter in the end.

    And, I keep forgetting to mention to those who keep on insisting Obama was born in Africa- correct me if I am wrong, but EVEN IF HE WAS born in Africa, Hawaii has a law that as long as one Hawaiian resident parent has documented residency in Hawaii one year prior to birth, the child is a Hawaiian, and U.S. Citizen.

    Obama was born in Hawaii, and even if he was born in Kenya, refer to the statement above. He was a dual citizen by natural right at birth- he could choose either African citizenship at his legal age of consent, or he could choose American citizenship. He chose American citizenship. He is a free man.

  65. avatar
    Thinker March 27, 2013 at 10:46 pm #

    This is one of the most wonderfully ironic sentences ever written by a birfer. Are you one of those Santorum supporters who thinks education is for snobs? I’ll bet you want government out of your Medicare, don’t you?

    Gabe:
    Putting the depth of the thought and opinions of the posters on this blog whom believe there is no difference between natural born citizen, native citizen or just citizen and why it does not matter what the citizenry of the person who aspires to be President, on the edge of a straight edge razor would seem as it is on a bowling alley lane.

  66. avatar
    Butterfly Bilderberg March 27, 2013 at 10:58 pm #

    Gabe:
    Putting the depth of the thought and opinions of the posters on this blog whom believe there is no difference between natural born citizen, native citizen or just citizen and why it does not matter what the citizenry of the person who aspires to be President, on the edge of a straight edge razor would seem as it is on a bowling alley lane.

    That’s a sentence I would hate to diagram.

  67. avatar
    SluggoJD March 27, 2013 at 11:05 pm #

    Gabe:
    Putting the depth of the thought and opinions of the posters on this blog whom believe there is no difference between natural born citizen, native citizen or just citizen and why it does not matter what the citizenry of the person who aspires to be President, on the edge of a straight edge razor would seem as it is on a bowling alley lane.

    Huh? lol

  68. avatar
    The Magic M March 28, 2013 at 7:06 am #

    Gabe: the posters on this blog whom believe there is no difference between natural born citizen, native citizen or just citizen

    Gabe, you are devolving quickly. Nobody here believes there is no difference between a superset (citizen) and its proper subset (natural/native born citizen).

    If you actually believe that, you are either spewing brainless birther talking points or have a real problem understanding the basic common English written here. Maybe someone needs to translate that into the Gaberish you speak?

  69. avatar
    The Magic M March 28, 2013 at 7:17 am #

    Scientist: Third, you may be interested that Chief Justice Roberts said just today that the answer to the unconstitutional parts of DOMA is not for the court to void them, but for the President to simply not enforce them

    No, he didn’t say that (at least not judging from what the article says).

    He made a non-legal quip that if the President thinks parts of a law are unconstitutional, he should stop enforcing them right away and not wait for SCOTUS to rule on it.

    He didn’t say the President should simply not enforce potentially unconstitutional parts *instead of* bothering SCOTUS with it.

    Sorry, but your paraphrase reads like many RWNJ spins, even though you probably didn’t mean to. 😉

    (I think the quip can be criticized on other grounds, such as it may be improper for a SCOTUS judge to tell the President to stop enforcing laws as he sees fit instead of waiting for a SCOTUS decision on constitutionality, basically telling him “if you think something might be unconstitutional, take the risk of SCOTUS not agreeing”. Why the heck would a judge want the President to take such risks?)

  70. avatar
    Keith March 28, 2013 at 7:40 am #

    The Magic M:
    He didn’t say the President should simply not enforce potentially unconstitutional parts *instead of* bothering SCOTUS with it.

    That’s how I read it.

    It sounded really strange coming from a SCCJ. While I found it hard to believe my reading of the story, I couldn’t interpret it any other way .

    I’ll have to go back and check it out further.

  71. avatar
    Gabe March 28, 2013 at 8:02 am #

    Deborah:
    This is a long thread and I can’t read all of it. But I’ll throw my two cents in about the Defense of Marriage Act- (DOMA, which former Pres. Clinton recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn)…

    Scientist: Third, you may be interested that Chief Justice Roberts said just today that the answer to the unconstitutional parts of DOMA is not for the court to void them, but for the President to simply not enforce them

    The defense of marriage referred to here literally mandates that the office of the President of the U.S., the Commander-in-Chief, the military, and lessor law enforcement, i.e. (police), use public funds (paid by even celibate people) to actively engage in “defending” marriage with the use of armed force! How totally inappropriate that the government should put a gun to your head and force you to stay married, or make unlawful in degrees any number of variations outside of marriage (such as cohabitation). Marriage should not include government FORCE at all!!!!

    There was a time when only marriages between white folk was allowed, and interracial marriage was an enFORCED felony.

    The above post is the winner of a guest of honor invite to the Dinner Game.

    Equating a racist time in US history with a moral perversion is beyond comprehension!

  72. avatar
    Scientist March 28, 2013 at 8:07 am #

    The Magic M: He made a non-legal quip that if the President thinks parts of a law are unconstitutional, he should stop enforcing them right away and not wait for SCOTUS to rule on it.

    He didn’t say the President should simply not enforce potentially unconstitutional parts *instead of* bothering SCOTUS with it.

    I don’t see a great difference between the 2.

    I suppose that the President could direct all federal agencies to ignore DOMA and treat all marriages the same. After all, prosecutors have discretion as to where to focus the resources of their offices and some have opted not to prosecute certain crimes, like possession of small amounts of marijuana. Certainly, the cops don’t ticket people for going 3 mph over the limit, though it is illegal. So, the Attorney General, who works for the President could probably take such an action here under his discretionary powers.

    Then. the onus would be on those who disagree to sue. They would have a problem with standing, since no one could demonstrate actual harm from such an action (which is why DOMA was dumb from the get-go). But that would then leave the status in limbo, dependent on the whims of each administration. So the sensible course is for the Court to say whether it is or isn’t unconstitutional. Roberts just seemed peeved that he is being asked to do his job.

  73. avatar
    Keith March 28, 2013 at 8:11 am #

    The Magic M: He didn’t say the President should simply not enforce potentially unconstitutional parts *instead of* bothering SCOTUS with it.

    OK, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. This is his quote:

    “If he has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions, and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, oh, we’ll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.”

    Lets suppose Obama issues an executive order that says we’re not going to enforce section 3 of the DOMA. So let married same sex couples file joint tax returns. Start paying social security benefits to survivors. Let American citizens bring in their same sex spouse in the same way heterosexual couples do, etc, etc, etc right down the line.

    Now suppose that SCOTUS eventually rules that section 3 is Constitutional after all.

    How does all that executing based on “his view of the Constitution” get undone? Didn’t the “courage of his convictions” cause him to violate his oath to “faithfully execute the laws of the United States”?

    Roberts is ducking the issue and trying to pass the buck for his own lack of intellectual and legal rigor. He seems to think that the discrimination against homosexual couples is just a figment of their imagination and doesn’t have any real world consequences.

    He gets paid to weigh laws against the Constitution and make judgments about them in that context. That’s why he is called a judge. Obama presides over the execution of the laws, that’s why he is called President.

    According to this HuffPo article, John Roberts DOMA Skepticism: Chief Justice Wonders If Law Was Really Motivated By Homophobia , it isn’t the first time that Justice Roberts has refused to acknowledge that discrimination exists.

  74. avatar
    Keith March 28, 2013 at 8:32 am #

    Huh! Guess what I just noticed?

    In ‘researching’ Roberts background just now for that post above I noticed that before he was on the Supreme Court, he succeeded James Buckley as Judge for the US Court of Appeals in DC.

    James Buckley is the brother of William Buckley and was a Senator from New York (Conservative Party switched to Republican after leaving the Senate) before he was a Judge. Buckley is the Buckley of Buckley v. Valeo that basically struck down the 1974 Campaign Finance Laws and ushered in the era of the dark money SuperPACs.

    But the interesting factoid is that the most important (according to Wikipedia anyway) piece of legislation he introduced as Senator was the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

    That’s right folk, the same guy that brought you Dark Money and out of control election spending, brought you Obama’s secret student record cache. So he can easily get the $23 million (or whatever it is this week) he needs to hide his records and the law on his side too!

    I tell ya, this guy Buckley must be his father or something.

  75. avatar
    Thinker March 28, 2013 at 10:49 am #

    Holy crap! Gabe actually learned how to use the quote function! This might be the first time in history that a birfer has demonstrated that he can learn. It’s a start. Next, Gabe, you should work on constructing a proper sentence and making a proper comparison.

    You didn’t answer my question about Medicare. Do you think government should get out of Medicare?

    Gabe: The above post is the winner of a guest of honor invite to the Dinner Game.

    Equating a racist time in US history with a moral perversion is beyond comprehension!

  76. avatar
    Rickey March 28, 2013 at 11:38 am #

    Reality Check:
    I wonder if that is Gabe Zolna from YoutTube? He speaks in Birfer gibberish.

    I did an online readability analysis of Gabe’s post. On a scale of 100, his post scored 8.

    I’m pretty sure that Gabe is Gabe Zolna. He likes to refer to the “stars and bars,” which probably tells you all you need to know about him.

  77. avatar
    Paper March 28, 2013 at 2:05 pm #

    You’re back on that kick? Again, do you not realize that the real schmucks of that game (in both the French and American versions) are the people issuing the invites? So you like to repeatedly insult yourself?

    Gabe: The above post is the winner of a guest of honor invite to the Dinner Game.

  78. avatar
    misha marinsky March 28, 2013 at 2:26 pm #

    Gabe: on the edge of a straight edge razor would seem as it is on a bowling alley lane.

    The time has come, the walrus said
    To speak of many things
    Of shoes, of ships, of sealing wax
    Of cabbages and kings
    And why the sea is boiling hot
    And whether pigs have wings.

    @Gabe: You may know the words, but you don’t know the tune.

  79. avatar
    Sef March 28, 2013 at 9:08 pm #

    Keith: No, of course not. I’m merely pointing out that VOTING is not a ‘human right’.

    The right to live is a human right, it is not dependent on the society in which a human functions.

    The right to vote is a civil right, it is dependent on the society in which a human functions.

    I tend to agree with Diane Rehm. On one of her radio shows (I think it was in 2008) she opined that voting was the most important duty of a citizen. (This is from my memory, and I cannot find the quote in Google.) I doubt that Doc wants to get into a rights vs. duties discussion, but when the U.S. voting percentage is so low it gives one pause to consider our country’s fate.

  80. avatar
    Rickey March 28, 2013 at 9:23 pm #

    Sef: I tend to agree with Diane Rehm.On one of her radio shows (I think it was in 2008) she opined that voting was the most important duty of a citizen. (This is from my memory, and I cannot find the quote in Google.)I doubt that Doc wants to get into a rights vs. duties discussion, but when the U.S. voting percentage is so low it gives one pause to consider our country’s fate.

    Actually, the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots in Presidential electors has remained relatively constant over the past 100 years. The high point was 62.8% in 1960. The turnout in 2012 is estimated to have been 57.5%, up considerably from the 49% turnout in 1996.

  81. avatar
    Sef March 28, 2013 at 9:30 pm #

    Rickey: Actually, the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots in Presidential electors has remained relatively constant over the past 100 years. The high point was 62.8% in 1960. The turnout in 2012 is estimated to have been 57.5%, up considerably from the 49% turnout in 1996.

    Do you think those are acceptable numbers? Also bear in mind, that those are percentages of registered voters, not eligible voters,

  82. avatar
    Reality Check March 29, 2013 at 12:30 pm #

    In the comments on Conterio’s article Mark Gillar extended a debate challenge to HistorianDude:

    History dude, you are welcome to provide me with your real name and come on my show and debate me on any of the evidence videos shown at Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 and July 17th 2012 press conferences. http://www.teapartypowerhour.com I’m not sure what is with Obots using fake names. Dr. C, RC, P.J. Foggy etc… It’s almost like your all so ashamed of what your’e saying that you want to hide behind an internet nick. Here’s my email address, mark@teapartypowerhour.com . I can’t wait for your correspondence

    Frank Arduini (HistorianDude) accepted and the debate was set for April 5th. Now it is off according to Frank.

    Mark Gillar has now formally backed out of this debate, which had been scheduled for taping on April 5, for an April 6th broadcast. I formally accepted the debate offer, but once Mike Zullo of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse got wind of the debate he asked GIllar to rescind the invitation and cancel the debate.For those interested in the likely reasons for Zullo’s squeamishness, you can start here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/11675248-/The-Annotated-Zullo

  83. avatar
    Paper March 29, 2013 at 12:45 pm #

    I think the attempted secession of the southern states suggests that slavery was not going to go out the easy way in our country. Free speech was being cast aside by the South, in its criminalizing of anti-slavery speech, in great contrast to our founding era’s ferociousness of speech on all matters. Also, keep in mind that in 1860 Lincoln received zero, count them zero, popular votes in southern states. Ahem, as we say in the vernacular. The Civil War and Reconstruction, with its amendments and laws, had a lot to do with guaranteeing a republican form of government, as per the Constitution, against such destructive actions.

    Scientist:
    Finally, the Constitution is said to protect against the wrong-headed desires of the majority that would trample freedom.I wonder.The Constitution protected slavery.So did the Supreme Court.Yet, by 1830 or 1840, the large majority of the population lived in states that had abolished slavery and a simple majority will at that point would have almost certainly been to phase it out over some period, perhaps 20 years.That might have avoided the Civil War.Remember, the British Empire abolished slavery by a vote of Parliament in 1833.Done.